“We will be providing information about the red-light traffic cameras in the near future,” he said.

City leaders have pushed for the cameras for at least eight years, saying it will cut down the number of bad crashes.

“We want to deter red-light running because the crashes that result are generally the right-angle, or T-bone, collisions, which are the most severe,” said City Engineer David Griffin.

The camera installed at the intersection near the McDonald’s and Taco Casa on 15th Street is on city streets. The remaining five are planned for state roadways and require approval from the Alabama Department of Transportation. Those are still under review, Griffin said.

There will be a 30-day grace period during which drivers will be warned instead of fined. Once the cameras are in use, violators will receive a $110 ticket in the mail.

All violations caught on camera will be reviewed by a Tuscaloosa police officer before a citation is issued. Officers will also be allowed to monitor footage for issued Amber Alerts or other searches for suspects.

The Tuscaloosa City Council contracted with Gatso USA to oversee the traffic-light camera system last year. The company studied drivers at eight Tuscaloosa intersections in April 2012. Of those, they determined that cameras are warranted at Interstate 359 and Skyland Boulevard, McFarland Boulevard and Skyland Boulevard, McFarland Boulevard and James I. Harrison Jr. Parkway, University Boulevard and Lurleen Wallace Boulevard North, University Boulevard and Lurleen Wallace Boulevard South and the one on 15th Street.

They studied but indicated no need for cameras at the Rice Mine Road, New Watermelon Road/Old Colony Road intersection and the 15th Street and 10th Avenue intersection.

Anyone who receives a ticket can contest the fine by submitting a request for a hearing in municipal court. A municipal court decision can be appealed in Tuscaloosa County Circuit Court.

The City Council ordinance passed in August 2012 establishing red-light camera use includes eight acceptable defenses people can use when challenging a ticket:

The traffic control signal was not in proper position or visible to “an ordinarily observant person.”

The driver was acting under order of a police officer.

The driver was yielding right-of-way to an emergency vehicle.

The vehicle was being operated as an authorized emergency vehicle.

The vehicle had been stolen or operated by another person without consent of the owner.

The ticket was issued to someone whose license plate had been stolen and placed on the vehicle captured running the light.

Ice, snow, heavy rain or other hazardous road conditions existed that would have made it more dangerous for the driver to stop.

The person who received the ticket was not the vehicle owner at the time of the violation.

Of the $110 fines that will be issued, $10 is required by state law for record-keeping requirements of the Alabama Criminal Justice Information Center. The remaining $100 is the maximum fine allowed by the legislative act. Of that, the company Gatso will receive $30 for each paid fine.

Gatso will mail citations to the registered owner of a vehicle once notified by a TPD officer that a violation occurred. If the owner of the vehicle was not the driver when the violation occurred, procedures will be in place to rectify that, according to an agreement between the company and city.

An Internet address and code will allow the driver to access photos and video of the violation and information about his speed and how long the light had been red. Payment can be submitted to Gatso via the Internet, phone or mail. The payments will accrue in an independent bank account, from which Gatso will give the city its designated share once every 30 days.

The company will install, monitor and maintain the camera system for three years, with options for each side to extend the contract after that.

The company will erect signs that alert motorists to the presence of the cameras, according to the agreement.

A 2011 study by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety compared large cities that use red-light cameras with large cities that don’t. Researchers found 24 percent fewer fatal crashes caused by red-light running in the cities that used cameras, according to the nonprofit organization’s website. The number of total fatal crashes in cities that used cameras was 17 percent less. The institute also reviewed international red-light camera studies and determined that cameras reduced the number of violations by 40 to 50 percent and crashes with injuries were reduced 25 to 30 percent.

The use of cameras here comes at a time when other states are reconsidering their use.

On Wednesday, the Ohio House of Representatives approved a bill that would ban red-light and speed cameras. Legislators who favored the ban said that local officials overused the cameras to generate profits. Supporters said the cameras changed driver habits and saved lives.

On the same day, members of the Miami City Commission in Florida voted to suspend traffic-camera use there after the mayor called it an indirect way of collecting taxes, according to a Miami Herald story printed Friday. A new Florida law requires municipalities to hold hearings for appeals of red-light camera citations.

A Washington Post story published Thursday reported that U.S. Rep. Kerry Bentivolio, R-Mich. is drafting a bill that would ban traffic cameras in Washington, D.C.

Media reports also document that cities in the San Francisco Bay and San Diego areas have stopped the use of cameras this year.